Grades Popped- Not Happy on a Few, Oh Well

orioles93

Overall happy about a few but not about some others. I expected the 53 to get a 1, though i thought it had a chance at a 1.5 cause of its eye appeal. I am ok with the 60 Mantle grade. The 64 Clemente is not trimmed. It measures up on all sides. I compared it to numerous other 64s that i already have. Thought it would pull a 6 or 7. It is really sharp except for centering. The 67 is ok at a 6. And i thought the Ripken was a 9 atleast. Errrrrrrrrrrrrrr. And I thought i was getting better at picking cards to send in. Guess not, oh well.


POOR 1 1953 TOPPS 82 MICKEY MANTLE
VERY GOOD-EXCELLENT 4 1960 TOPPS 350 MICKEY MANTLE
N1: EVIDENCE OF TRIMMING 1964 TOPPS 440 BOB CLEMENTE
EXCELLENT-MINT 6 1967 TOPPS 400 BOB CLEMENTE
NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1982 TOPPS 21 ORIOLES FUTURE STARS BONNER/RIPKEN/SCHNEIDER

Heres some scans from before grading. Dont have one of the 64 clemente unfortunately.

Bosox1976

I like that '53.

Ilovecards

its a crap shoot ... one grader says this another says that then another will say something completely different . lol

I am sorry I know how you feel. Its really impossible to pick a card that will grade different send them again and all different grades.

akuracy503

Now that you know the Mantles are grade worthy I would've popped them out and display those beauties raw!
I miss my 50's raw cards, I had more fun not worrying about grades

Either way great cards!

bobbyw8469

I thought they were one grade too generous on the 1960. The 1953 is accurate. I had one that look ALOT better than that one that only pulled a '1'. Iconic card nonetheless.

orioles93

Guess I'm really most upset about the 64 Clemente.

hyperchipper09

what am I missing on the Ripken that kept it from at least an 8.5, maybe even a 9? Touched corners? Surface issue maybe?

orioles93

<< <i>what am I missing on the Ripken that kept it from at least an 8.5, maybe even a 9? Touched corners? Surface issue maybe? >>



Got me. No surface issues. No print dots. Corners all look good to me under a loupe. That fuzz on the bottom right isn't from the card. I thought it was a sure fire 9 and I thought it Possibly had a chance at a 10.

I actually think it looks better than the 9 that I currently have.

jeffcbay

<< <i>what am I missing on the Ripken that kept it from at least an 8.5, maybe even a 9? Touched corners? Surface issue maybe? >>



The registration issues kept the Ripken out of a 9, in my opinion.

DanBessette

<< <i>Guess I'm really most upset about the 64 Clemente. >>



I would be too.

schapko

<< <i>

<< <i>what am I missing on the Ripken that kept it from at least an 8.5, maybe even a 9? Touched corners? Surface issue maybe? >>



The registration issues kept the Ripken out of a 9, in my opinion. >>



I have a 10 that I subbed from a group rip and mine has the same type of shifted pictures that this card has where the pics don't quite line up with the black boxes.

orioles93

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>what am I missing on the Ripken that kept it from at least an 8.5, maybe even a 9? Touched corners? Surface issue maybe? >>



The registration issues kept the Ripken out of a 9, in my opinion. >>



I have a 10 that I subbed from a group rip and mine has the same type of shifted pictures that this card has where the pics don't quite line up with the black boxes. >>



I'm pretty sure that is very common. I don't think they knock grade due to it.

Ilovecards

resubmit !